Mylor

Order, Order........ Tenerife's a separate topic!! Can we have our thread back please?

Sorry guys, I had to draw the line somwhere. I'd already covered 36 points and needed to get this out before the BSPA conference whether it made a difference or not. Good points for stage two though, if we get anywhere near to it eh? Fancy voting on stage one?

Sorry Kevin, This is a vote for what you want, not about what you think will happen. ;-)

I think Kevin voted for a)............but then again......... Mark, can you read a) & again?.........I'm getting conflicting signals. :roll:

In the last 9 days 208.....ish have viewed thread but we still don't have a feel for how they view the principals. I suspect many have given it a cursory glance and moved on............probably thinking that Mylor's a cheeky bug*er for compiling this in the first place. The BSPA meeting takes place in 20 days time. You may wish to send them on their way with an idea of how you feel regarding the forum's suggestions. With this in mind I propose a vote on the following 5 options: a) Fans shouldn't be suggesting improvements Speedway should be developed roughly along these lines. c) Speedway should not be developed along these lines. d) I have a better idea and will post it in 'The Way Ahead' e) It doesn't matter how speedway develops as long as my team wins the league next year. Any seconders? ;-)

Sorry guys............... The advantages for the fans, much greater variety, was covered in the post if you followed the link. Sorry, I should have extracted them as well.

Sean.........see http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forum/view...opic.php?t=3294. An extract for you: For 2004……….riders can only sign for one team reducing the costs of running in the EL. Steady now.........read the rest of this before you come to any conclusions!! A few PL teams may then become interested in moving to the EL and those thinking of leaving the EL may change their minds. This would give the EL supporters more variety, keep Sky interested and solve the immediate crisis. The top 4 or 5 would qualify for the European Club Championship (ECC) along with teams from the Polish, Swedish and other leagues. For 2005………..All teams would ride in their national leagues. Perhaps those qualifying for the ECC would become exempt from the BLC if it’s still running. The ECC teams, say 16 or 20, would go into a draw to produce 4 mini-leagues. They would compete home and away. The top 2 go forward to the 2 leg quarterfinals, 2 leg semis, then a final held possibly on a GP track within a few days of the GP (because the corporate & merchandise infrastructure, TV etc would already be there?). Qualifiers would get a full league program, including local derbies, of course, and a minimum of 6 or 8 ECC matches. TV (Sky and/or terrestrial, who may become interested at this level) would get a larger EL and 25 or 33 ECC matches. Promoters get more through the turnstiles and more TV money. Supporters get...............to breathe a sigh of relief at least but I get the feeling it will put smiles on quite a few faces I posted that some time ago so I think it may be too late now for the powers that be to get it rolling for 2004, but we live in hope eh! Kevin and I are pointing in much the same direction but see it slightly differently. Neither route is perfect but either would generate a lot of interest from broadcasters and sponsors.

Sigh....................... :roll: You can't deny that, for those who don't even know that a programme exists, the TV viewers new to the sport, the present format is about as good as it's gonna get. They know that every rider in every heat can win the GP and they don't need a programme to follow that. As for mediocrity and the opening few heats, some of these riders do get through and add a bit of spice to the main event. Would you deny the likes of Martin Dugard a GP win? Bit like the FA Cup, who'd be interested in that if it was restricted to the Premiership clubs? We aired the subject of gate positions last year. All the old format proved was that TR was the best off gate 1..............it was tedious to watch and we nearly lost Mrs Mylor and probably many others to the sport which she'd only just rediscovered after getting bored watching someone called Schumacher for a few years.

Airports...............I forgot about airports!! Most are quite busy/noisy during the summer months. An additional 15 minutes of noise in the vicinity once a week wouldn't be noticed, surely. Liverpool, Bristol, Birmingham, Luton....................any interest in these areas? :roll:

I'm in two minds over whether the BSPA and the other national bodies should get involved in running this championship directly. It may be a quick & dirty fix but methinks it would also incur the wrath of the FIM. Whether we like it or not the UEM are part of the heirarchical(?) chain, BSPA, SCB, ACU, UEM, FIM. The BSPA may wish to take a leading role, along with the other national bodies in driving through reform of the UEM along the lines of my previous post http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forum/view...opic.php?t=5006

Thanks Lioness/jgl. I am now a goodly bit wiser.

A red herring I think Sean. If all teams started at 40, of course their combined average at the end of the season would be 45. If they make it, say 42 or 40 then perhaps one or two CL teams could pick up some decent riders to help them make the move which I think goes some way to answering Lioness's points. Has this been tried before? If so, what actually happened and did the league grow? It would, of course be a waste of time and talent if it didn't.

Whatever encourages CL teams to move up or helps new tracks to enter the PL directly. Let the sport grow.

Now I don’t know Mark……………for all I know he may be CVS looking for ideas but for better or worse I’ve accepted the challenge!! Mind your feet……….this ones heavy!! What follows is a draft of the principles Mark asked for above and has been generated using most of the salient points raised by forum members. In order to tailor this into a workable format I’ve sewn the threads together with a few strands of my own. Although the members may not always see eye to eye when discussing a single topic, there appears to be a general consensus amongst us that this sport is great, but could be much greater and much more popular if some of our ideas were taken up and acted upon. These may well give rise to a whole new set of problems but hopefully these would be ones born of success. There should be no element of compulsion in any of these issues. Freeing up some of the logjams the sport finds itself in and providing a framework within which the sport can evolve at a natural rate should be deemed the first priority. A bit like feeding and watering garden plants really rather than letting them fend for themselves. To cover all the points suggested by the membership would have been impractical in the time available before the winter recess. Believe it or not, what follows is an abridged version. Many of the issues, especially the more contentious ones, are still the subject of ‘live’ threads on the forum. My apologies if I haven’t covered ‘your’ point but as you can see this is already taking up a goodly chunk of Phil’s bandwidth. With this in mind I’ve numbered the points to save you quoting whole chunks in your replies. That’s the only reason I’ve done this…….it’s certainly not to make this look like a government white paper!! Please feel free to comment and add your own points to the thread and, if you feel it’s worth while, pass the thread link or even the whole text to anyone you think may help these, in full or in part, come about. 1) Ruling bodies At first glance it may appear that the ruling bodies have grown out of all proportion and would be expensive to run, however, many of these functions are already being undertaken. It seems to make sense though to bring these people in to the controlling bodies where they can have an impact by at least sanity checking the rule book if not being actively engaged in making the rules. There is a change of emphasis however, aimed at growing the sport in stature as well as size. 1a) FIM – No posts have suggested any change here, however the FIM seems the appropriate body to take on this task: A team of specialists be assembled to build temporary tracks of the finest quality where required. This team would replace a national body’s team. Any additional expenditure should be weighed against the benefits to the sport of producing first class meetings for a worldwide audience.. 1b) UEM – A union of European motorcycle federations responsible for organising European events. We may consider the speedway functions of the Track Racing Working Group of this body to be in need of a major overhaul as many of us have never heard of it and it fails to effectively promote itself or it’s championships. It’s primary functions should include the promotion of the sport at European level, the organisation of European competitions with the full co-operation and participation of all national bodies, Internationals and Test Series, media and marketing rights (European competitions), refereeing quality, track and stadia licensing (for European events), safety and track standards, marketing, sponsorship, media relations, ticket distribution and legal issues. Funding to come primarily from media and marketing rights related to the successful promotion of it’s competitions. 1c) National bodies - Speedway Control Board/Bureau, an ACU body Now seen as being under the control of the BSPA which is sometimes seen as a body not being dedicated to the promotion of the sport as a whole. It has been suggested that it be revised (and renamed?) to become an independent body comprising representatives of all facets of the sport to include, say, a promoter's delegate, a riders delegate, a referees delegate, an ACU delegate, a delegate with responsibility for liaising with the UEM and the FIM, a delegate with responsibility for promotional elements (TV, BSI liaison, publicity etc), media and marketing rights, a safety and track standards delegate, a ‘new tracks’ support delegate, and a training and development delegate. Again, it’s primary function should be the promotion of the sport at national level. Funding to come from track levies and the sale of media and marketing rights related to national competitions. 1d) BSPA - Of course we need promoters, especially the ones who ‘promote’ in the broadest sense of the word, and it’s only right that they have a body to represent their interests. As the promoter’s interests can sometimes appear to conflict with the best interests of the sport as a whole we would be amongst the first to applaud them on having the courage and foresight to transfer some of their powers to the new Control Board on which they would be represented. Other issues proper to the ruling bodies. 1e) Rule stability. One set of race rules including the use of substitutes etc to apply to all races internationally. Meeting rules should apply to all meetings of that type. The application of differing rules for different competitions creates confusion amongst new supporters and sometimes team managers and referees. 1f) Distribution of rights, sponsorship and marketing monies to be transparent. In order to encourage the rapid growth required to fulfil this plan training and development should be given a high priority. In the medium to long term it may be advantageous to allocate some of the proceeds specifically for stadium improvements and safety items such as air fences. 1g) Promote the sport by all available means. Be proactive. Provide media with materials, match reports, photo’s, video footage, competition prizes etc and the support necessary to encourage them to cover the sport in depth. The internet may well have a large part to play in the distribution of this material. Could ‘Speedway FM’ become viable at some point, broadcast on digital and the internet? 1h) Provide expertise and support to help new, and existing promoters opening new tracks, especially covering local authority presentations, planning, regional funding and local issues. 1i) Implement cost reduction measures aimed at helping newcomers take up the sport. Particular attention should be given to reducing tyre and engine costs and ‘Approved Supplier’ status awarded to companies offering discounts to newcomers on goods and services. 1j) A system of Yellow & Red cards to replace exclusion under the 2 minute rule, moving at the start or as the cause of a stoppage. Exclusion to remain as the penalty for touching the tapes. 2) Expansion It is generally accepted that, as the prime focus of televised speedway and as a showcase for the top riders, the Elite League will need to expand if it is to remain viable. The reluctance of other clubs to join the EL is, in many cases, the result of the much higher running costs and the lack of variety offered under the present format. To encourage new teams and increase the variety on offer the EL needs to reduce it’s running costs and offer compelling incentives for other tracks to join. Any growth in popularity of the sport encouraging new tracks to open may be hindered by the capacity of the PL to accommodate them without itself splitting into 2 divisions, neither of which may be viable until further growth occurs. It follows that, in the short term, capacity in the PL, and the difficulties being experienced by the EL, would, short of the possibility of new tracks entering the EL directly, best be eased by teams moving voluntarily from the former to the latter, however, the concerns of clubs offering to make the move should be effectively addressed. 2a) Cost reduction (EL) – Primarily based on one rider, one club across Europe which would have the effect of spreading the top riders more thinly. 2b) Increased attendances (All) – Suggestions include offering newcomers their first 6 meetings free (supporters clubs may well be happy to organise this based on temporary membership and proof of identity), Kids for a quid, kids clubs free nights, buy one ticket get one free/half price nights, carnival floats, local publicity, media liaison. At tracks not covered by local reporters, tracks may wish to write their own reports and send them, with photos to local media. Short video clips and match reports may also be welcomed by local TV and radio who may give additional coverage to meetings and events supporting local charities and good causes. 2c) More variety (EL) – As well as the welcome addition of any clubs deciding to make a step up under the new climate, the clubs should be encouraged to support a European Club Championship (ECC, made feasible by the one rider, one club initiative. Briefly this could comprise of the top 16, 20 or 24 teams across Europe competing home and away in leagues of 4, 5 or 6 followed by 2-leg knockout stages and a final possibly staged the Sunday after a GP on the same track (as many fans, the media and all the other required facilities would already be in place). Of course this would increase revenues from broadcasters, encourage sponsors and boost the sales of merchandise. 2d) Successful implementation of the above could see quite rapid expansion of the EL in the medium term. 3) Training & Development Vital in the new climate of course, as the riders will be needed to sustain the growth and cover the shortfall resulting from the one rider, one club initiative which is why priority should be given to rider training and development in the early stages of the plan when the authorities distribute rights and sponsorship monies.. 3a) Retired riders – Mechanisms should be available to reimburse the expenses of retired riders involved in training and development 3b) Cost reduction rulings – As highlighted above, these should aimed at encouraging newcomers to take up the sport. 3c) Travelling expenses – Primarily for non-wage earners, students etc when travelling to away meetings in recognised, essentially amateur competitions 4) Club issues 4a) One rider, one club. Not only reduces costs but promotes a culture of longer term team loyalty. Rider churn undoubtedly has an effect on fan retention. Fewer meetings per rider should mean fewer injuries and fewer guests. 4b) New riders. The training program should in the medium term provide new riders, however in the short term doubling-up, CL to PL and PL to EL may be deemed the best way forward. 4c) Doubling-up/down. Again, in order to encourage fan/team loyalty it may be worth considering naming the club’s pool of double-up/down riders before the start of the season. 4d) Squad system pilot. In order to promote rider/club loyalty consideration should be given to running a squad system pilot. 4e) Rider training. Consideration should also be given to expanded sponsorship, by clubs, of young riders, whether or not they can be trained locally, with a view to retaining them as assets. Such assets may, subject to further discussion and agreement between all parties, be retained regardless of any points limits in force. 4f) Guest riders. The guest rider system could be deemed to be confusing to newcomers and disheartening to regulars. As, in any one season, the number of guest appearances per team would be somewhat similar, little would be gained from retaining the system. Promotion of second strings and the use of reserves or doubling-up riders would probably be of more benefit in the long term 4g) European Club Championship. The adoption of the ECC initiative by EL and European clubs should provide more variety, more opportunity to see top class riders and more media and sponsorship revenue as well as giving a financial incentive to finishing towards the top of the league. The lure may also encourage PL or new teams to apply for entry. 4h) Promotion & relegation. A longer term objective requiring many of the other initiatives to be taken up and a degree of expansion to be achieved first. It is recognised that for geographical and financial reasons some clubs may wish to forgo promotion opportunities in which case promotion may be offered to the next highest club in the league. As an alternative it may be deemed more desirable for this ‘next highest club’ to meet in a 2 leg ‘play off’ with the relegated club from the higher division. To be allowed to compete in the higher division would mean accepting the rules, one of which would be acceptance of the conditions under which a team can be relegated. It may even be deemed desirable to withhold some or all of the rights and other money until the following season to act as both a 'parachute payment' and as a deterrent. 4i) Facilities for Prestige Events. In the medium to long term tracks licensed to hold prestige events should be encouraged to provide facilities in keeping with their status, scoreboards, video replays etc. The required funding should be raised from the proceeds of such events. 4j) Inter league tournaments. Rules for these seem to allow for a remarkable degree of flexibility, often causing much head scratching amongst regulars, newcomers and even referees and team managers. As stated above under Rule Stability, meeting rules should apply to all meetings of that type. 5) Rider issues There is little doubt that the above changes would affect top riders probably more than anyone else, however for a sport striving to improve it’s credibility and improve it’s popularity the concept of riders riding for more than one club is likely to restrict progress. 5a) One rider, one club. This would reduce income somewhat initially. Riders may well need to consider cutting their expenditure accordingly however, in this new environment, as it would be the same for all riders, competitiveness should not be unduly affected. In the longer term the benefits (more internationals, ECC matches and prestige individual events) should outweigh the disadvantages. 5b) ECC. All riders riding for the top clubs in Europe should benefit from the additional income, exposure and sponsorship such a competition would bring. Properly promoted and covered by the media it could quickly be perceived as being second only to the GP’s in popularity. 5c) Availability for internationals. More dates would become available for internationals and test series. Perhaps not a major draw at present, however this is probably only due to there being little history of rivalry amongst the test riding nations. England v Germany in football, England v Australia in cricket, major draws and always of interest to the media. Team GB v Sweden, Poland or Australia, take your pick. Everyone a winner? 5d) Availability for prestige individual events. These have lost credibility in recent years as fans have been used to seeing top riders week in week out at their local tracks, however as this may not be the case in the new climate these provide the ideal opportunity for fans to see their best home riders competing against the best in the world. 5e) Reduced expenditure and club benefits. One rider, one club would bring reduced travelling time and costs, lower machinery and support costs. It should also make many clubs viable again giving riders more stability and encouraging loyalty, which, as in other major sports, brings it’s own benefits in terms of merchandise sales etc. 5f) Injuries. More matches, more injuries……….track standards and safety have been addressed above, however it’s unreasonable to expect riders to arrive fresh and alert for 5 meetings a week spread all over Europe week in, week out without it taking it’s toll and what a toll it’s taken this year. 6) Broadcasters and rights holder issues. The quality of speedway coverage in recent years has been little short of stunning. Adoption of some or all of the initiatives and new competitions mentioned above should give plenty of quality competition and variety for broadcasters in the UK and throughout Europe to get their teeth into. 6a) An expanded Elite League would create more variety. 6b) A European Club Championship. 7 man teams, home and away, and a Final held on a GP circuit on the Sunday after the GP……… A brand new competition rights holders and broadcasters could mould and promote to their, and our liking. Ok it’s not strictly brand new but it’s not been tried like this before and should make excellent viewing. 6c) Internationals and test series. Team GB v Sweden, Poland or Australia, take your pick. With the potential to rival their equivalents in cricket, rugby and football. Ok we need to develop a history of rivalry, but this should happen rather more quickly with the aid of TV. Everyone a winner? 7) Timescales. A very rough guide to how this could come about. Year 1 – 1a, 1f, 1g, 1i, 1j, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4e, 4f. Year 2 – 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1h, 2a, 4a, 4b (Yr 2-5), 4j, 5a, 5e, 5f. Year 3 – 2c, 4d, 4g, 5b, 5c, 5d, 6a, 6b, 6c Year 4 – 2d, 4i. Year 5 – 4h And finally Kick it about, amend it, criticise it, bin it, consign it to the Fantasy Speedway League section. Do as you will to it. I suspect some will do the latter. I considered posting it there myself more than once but the fact remains that these are the ideas put forward by us, the paying customers, whether we pay at the turnstiles, subscribe to Sky, buy the Speedway Star, the merchandise or the goods advertised on C4. We are the lifeblood of the business. Credible, successful business listen to their customers and even if they don’t react in quite the way we would hope we can make a difference.

. Well done Debrecen!!! Second in the European Club Championship is an excellent result for a team that doesn't compete in any league, anywhere...........how did they qualify?? But what a smart move by the Russians.......eh?? Select your top 3 riders and add 2 Grand Prix stars who haven't ridden for them all year. Can't think why Ladbokes didn't run a book on this one. A bit of a cheek when your biggest rivals left out Gollob and Loram to make thinks a bit more interesting.................

Mark, You should find something of interest in your email. I'll be away from lunchtime today 'till Monday night so no rush.

But don't let that stop anyone from trying to persuade them that things need to change. Actually they know that already but if their efforts of the last few years are anything to go by you, and they, may well think a little guidance from the paying public would not go amiss. Keep posting

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forum/view...opic.php?t=4445

Some good points made there Martin. As jgl07 said “The point is that promotion and relegation can only work if the gap in standards was small.“ A three division option would cover this point quite nicely, however, 9 teams per division does seem rather small for a successful speedway league. It only works in cricket due to the 4 day matches. I’ve never been keen on teams meeting 4 times per season and I’m sure it’s boring the pants off the EL supporters. Anyone know how cricket overcomes the standards issue with promotion and relegation with two small leagues? Methinks Sky may just get interested in the final promotion match (Play off final??) from the second division but not much else. Or the Sky subscribers, C4, advertisers or sponsors, ultimately grass roots but they’re not all likely to be speedway supporters. Excellent post Peregrinner…..This bit especially caught my eye……. Yes, we already have voluntary relegation don’t we? Well spotted frigbo……. Paragraph 3. Now why didn’t I think of that!! Do they call in guests, double-up or use the cricket equivalent to rider replacement? Do you know where they do get their money from Dekker? I wouldn’t think Div 2 would be televised that often. Sponsorship? Perhaps they have a really fair and open distribution of rights money right down the leagues. If so, shouldn’t we be thinking along the same lines?

Is there an echo in here?? Didn't I answer these points in my 2nd post on this thread? Is Exeter and Dekker one and the same?

Ahhh but you didn't say independant ML....I started another thread on controlling bodies ( :? :roll: ) http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forum/view...4445&highlight=

See Midnight Lady's sig.............. :?

. Sorry girls, this topic is about speedway Ahhh but you didn't say independant We've had quite a few posts mentioning that we need a strong controlling/governing body, some of them, including some of mine, specifying an independent body. But what should we mean by 'independent'? A body made up of people with no connection to the sport? A body made up of people who have retired from the sport? How could the body remain independent? How would these people be appointed? Or would it be more sensible to have a body made up of representitives of all the facets of the sport? Say a promoter's delegate, a riders delegate, a referees delegate, an ACU delegate, a delegate with responsibility for liaising with a European body and the FIM, a delegate with responsibility for running the promotional elements (TV, BSI liaison, publicity etc), a safety and track standards delegate, a training and development delegate...............and how would these be appointed? A Speedway Control Board with teeth?

For others following this thread and as this is the second time it has been mentioned, at no point have I mentioned forcing any club to accept promotion and relegation. As I said above:- ..............but I'm slowly coming round to the idea that it would only come about when teams in the 'lower' division(s) start hammering at the door of the 'higher' division to be let in.

Doesn't first class cricket have promotion and relegation between two nine team divisions? No offence taken Lioness. I do wish I hadn't replied making reference to Scotland though. As is perfectly clear, I'm no expert on the finer points of Scottish speedway. I did cover the point about where the money would come from in detail in wolfcrazy's thread (link above) and my previous posts. For those not familiar with the concept it is based on making the EL a much cheaper league to run a team in by encouraging the introduction of a One rider, One team initiative across Europe sometime over the next few years thus making the EL viable as top riders would be much more thinly spread. The European Club Championship then also becomes viable (not a one week affair, a proper 7 man home and away format), more variety, more coverage, more support............. Of course none of us has all the answers to all the points that would be raised but it's a decent starting point don't you think?